The following list was taken from this organization. Note the positions these people hold. they all are united in stating that positing global climate change to man-caused CO2 emissions is irresponsible science. These guys are staking their careers and their futures on this. Please do not respond with ad hominen attacks, if you disagree. (i.e., I'd rather not post comments, like, "Bush paid them" or, "financed by oil companies). Instead, only intellectually honest disagreements. These guys put their work on line. read it. dispute it with facts.
Truth is the victim here. I'd like to talk about less volatile things, but I cannot. We must know our times.
Natural Resources Stewardship Project "Allied Experts"
Expert Position/Organization
Email
Sample Web Sites
1 Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC Professor Emeritus - Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury ; expert on pre-historic global climate patterns
pcopper@laurentian.ca
http://laurentian.ca/geology/faculty/copper.html
2 Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomist (soil chemistry, fertility and microbiology), Cobourg, Ontario
paavo.siitam@sympatico.ca
http://plantseatco2.blogspot.com/
3 Dr. Madhav Khandekar Environmental Consultant (extreme weather events), 25 years with Environment Canada in Meteorology, Unionville , Ontario
mkhandekar@rogers.com
http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/IPN_impacts_report_embargoed.pdf and http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Khandekar/india_economic_progress.html
4
Rob Scagel, M.Sc.
Forest microclimate specialist, Principal Consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
phytomet1@shaw.ca
NA
5
Dr. Tad Murty
Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa. Previously Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Past Director of the National Tidal Facility of Australia
NA
http://www.springerlink.com /content/g87327815xg2u1h2/
6 Dr. Garth W. Paltridge Emeritus Professor, Director of the Antarctic CRC and Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia
paltridge@iinet.net.au or G.Paltridge@utas.edu.au
http://fcms.its.utas.edu.au/scieng/iasos/index.asp
7 Dr. R.M. Carter
Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory- James Cook University, Townsville , Queensland , Australia
bob.carter@jcu.edu.au
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/
8 Dr. Ian Plimer Professor, School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, The Mawson Laboratories, The University of Adelaide , S.A. , Australia
ian.plimer@adelaide.edu.au
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/umfs/biogs/UMFS070b.htm and http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/science/Plimer.doc
9 Dr. Gary D. Sharp Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas , California
gsharp@redshift.com
http://sharpgary.org/
10 Dr. Lee C. Gerhard
Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; Retired Director, Kansas Geological Survey; Noted author and geological expert on climate history.
leeg@sunflower.com
http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/index.htm
11 Dr. Fred Singer President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University , Professor Emeritus of environmental science at University of Virginia
singer@sepp.org
www.sepp.org
12 Dr. David R. Legates Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Delaware, Director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research and Delaware's State Climatologist
legates@UDel.Edu
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2005/mar/dlegates092305.html
13 Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner Emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University , Stockholm , Sweden ; Sea level specialist
morner@pog.nu
http://globallychanging.blogspot.com/2005/12/prof-nils-axel-mrner-on-rising-sea.html
14 Dr. Richard P. Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric & Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
lindzen@wind.mit.edu
www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm , http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 and http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606
15 Dr. Robert Balling Director – Office of Climatology, Arizona State University
robert.balling@asu.edu
geography.asu.edu/balling/
16 Dr. Al Pekarek
Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota
a pekarek @stcloudstate.edu
NA
17 Dr. Wibjörn Karlén
Emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University , Sweden
wibjorn.karlen@kultgeog.uu.se
http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Newsletter/NL01W/PDF/climateW01.pdf
18 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze
Climate consultant, official scientific IPCC TAR Reviewer, Germany
p_dietze@t-online.de
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
19 Hans Erren
Geophysical consultant, The Hague, Netherlands
erren21@zonnet.nl
http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/cooling.htm
20 Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm Former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
H.Labohm@freeler.nl
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Labohm-Cooling.htm
21 Dr. David Wojick, P.E. Independent journalist and policy analyst, specializing in Kyoto issues
dwojick@hughes.net
http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm and http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=216
22 Dr. Art Robinson
Founder – Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
art@oism.org
www.oism.org/pproject/
23 Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser Atmospheric Consultant – previously with Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, California
hughel@attbi.com
NA
24 Dr. Howard C. Hayden Emeritus Professor of Physics – University of Connecticut
corkhayden@attbi.com
NA
25 Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski Physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
jaworo@clor.waw.pl
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
26 Dr. Richard Courtney Climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K
richardscourtney@aol.com
NA
Copyright 2006, NRSP NRSP background | the NRSP strategy | get involved ! | NRSP people | contact info | home
11 comments:
Amen, These Men are the Real Hero's.
Honestly 30 years ago when Scientist believed that the earth was cooling off. It's time to take a step back and stop it with the ...We're having a mild winter it must be global warming argument.
It's getting hotter, 10 years from now it could get cooler. Al Gore has told us all we have 10 years to do something about it, byt flying private jets all over the country?!!
And the sad part is all the US has to do is replace a bunch of fossil feul powered power plants with Nuclear ones and we'd reduce Fossil Feul emissions by a ton? But we'd never do that!!!
So I take it you are one of those people who think global warming is a myth? Or do you just beleive that the part about it being man made (for lack of a better term) is a myth?
Just curious.
There are a lot more scientists with similar titles and roles who beleive man is causing it.
I am not scientist, obviously, but I would rather err on the side of caution here.
Hate to be a bubble burster, but a 3 minute google search yielded 3 sources indicating that the NRSP is a fake grass roots movement controlled by a Canadian energy lobbyist group.
I believe nothing put forth by lobbyists, no matter their position.
Wizard, here's the issues.
"So, you're one of those people" is ad hominen. I'd rather deal with facts.
But to clarify, I believe the globe might be in a warming trend. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence that says it is man made NOR that CO2 is the cause. Caution? Caution is you don't wreck your economy and change the lives of millions over dubious science.
Next, NSRP has real scientists. The ad-hominen attack does little for me. Deal with what they say. They are real professors, real scientists, with real jobs, real histories. that they band together to fight what they think is false does not disqualify them. But, if it does, believe me the green-lobbyists funding the other side means you don't have an opinion at all.
Heck, even the UN scientists hinted that they were not sure that man caused it, or that CO2 was the issue, and said there was nothing we could do to stop it.
Bottom line, all you have said is that I might be one of those people, the scientists I quoted are fake, and your caution leads you to believe that the greenie scientists must be right, even though you plead ignorance on the science. Hmm. Not very compelling.
I think in something as important as this, you need to study the actual facts, instead of seeing this as an us-against-them argument were you collect ammo to fire at those who object.
Remember, there are real live meterologists and climatoligists who are being canned over not towing the party line. What lobbyist is funding that?
I did the three minute search. Awesome. I came up first page!
Also, all the detractors were greenies. "blog-smog.com" that kind of thing. And, did they dispute the science?
Nope. Just more ad-hominen. Just lots of, "They're fakes!". even cool terms like "astro-turf" science.
the adhominen machine goes.
sorry, greenies. give me facts. expose the actual men who have put their resume's on line. prove they are not who they say, not experts.
Name calling doesn't work with me.
oh man, I went in for more. fun stuff. people nextagenda.com and info-pollution.com.
great strategy. you never have to deal with facts. just attack the other side, call them fakes.
C.S. Lewis coined a term for this. It's Bolshevism.
I officially declare this a Bolshevism free zone. no winning arguments by attacking the man. if someone is fake, prove it. if not, then deal with their science.
Hey, here's another group. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
Of course, any opposing voice is fake, so you don't have to take them seriously or nothing. Look, they get funds from other people. unlike the greenie scientists who . . . get funds from . . . other people. Well forget that.
well, if they were'nt all fake, this would be another interesting site.
Of course, since they don't tow the party line, they will be executed soon.
(by the way, for any wondering, this is called sarcasm, with some edgy humor)
Mike, with all due respect, you constantly attack sources that you deem to have a liberal agenda.
Its clear that, while scientists, they are on the payroll of an energy lobbying firm.
That aside, even if they are not, they are 25 vs hundreds and maybe thousands of scientists who claim that global warming is at the very least accelerated by man made activities. (with a 90% certainty).
As an aside, US Cities who have voluntarily adapted the Kyoto Accord guidelines have benefited economically, no suffered.
I have no idea is Kyoto is the answer or not. I am all about listening to other solutions. But finding a reason to turn a blind eye to it seems absurd.
Finally, saying this and that is ad hominen is in itself ad hominen. Its dismissive. You emply your own brand of ad hominen attack as it suits you, but now you have grown tired of mine. At least that message has gotten through. I will now cease in that regard.
Of coruse, in the end, neither of us KNOWS for sure if the Global Warming pattern is man made or not. I suppose what we really disagree on is what is enough evidence to begin doing something about it.
here's the deal. I don't want to hear, "They're lying because they're greenies," nor "they're lying because they're not greenies."
I want truth. and I'm looking. and I'm willing to be convinced of anything on this issue. but I want truth. changing policy on these issues means huge amounts of new government control and manipulation. WE should not move quickly.
for example, did you hear that the new EU court wants to have a classification called environmental crimes? Can you imagine the fascism that would arise from that? Since so much is dependent on ever-changing science, this could easily amount to Orwellian oppression.
I'd rather deal with deliberative, thoughtful information.
I think the thing we all need to realize here is that this is just a blog... it's just the opinions of one person. there's no reason to get riled up about someone's opinions. everyone's allowed to have them and if they were all the same this would be a dictatorship, not a democracy.
Wizard, let me try this again.
When it comes to the global warming issue, which I have just started researching this week, I have found two camps. Let's call them A and B.
Camp A hears what camp B's data and then disputes it with data of their own.
Camp B, on the other hand, ignores camp A's data and attacks their motives.
It is too simple to say, "Well, they are on the payroll of oil companies so they are liars." First, that fact needs to be verified. I am finding people saying outright that they pure academics, being paid by no one. and these aren't light weights. We're talking MIT, Ivy leagues scientists, etc. So, even if we want to stick the the "attack the man instead of dealing with his data" approach, you need to check your facts.
Furthermore, if all we want to check is who is on whose payroll, please consider the evidence that points out that there is research money that rewards pro-man-made global warming research, and there is persecution for those who come up with different results.
Bottom line, it doesn't matter who pays who as much as the facts and data presented.
Wizard, I am calling you to a higher level of discourse than the gutteral political-social rhetoric of the pop culture. I'm asking you to think about facts.
You don't even seem to notice this, and so I assume that you are in a culture that doesn't point it out. So I will. As long as I have known you, the number one argument you have had against things you and I disagree with has been to accuse the source of data of being tainted.
That said, there is nothing wrong with saying, "Those oil companies are paying for the research they want." BUT, in order to not be guilty of poor thinking, you MUST follow that up with proof that their data is wrong. You never go that far.
I'm investigating on my own. I'll read the UN Report. I'll read the critics, and I'll read the critics of the critics. I've already begun. When I'm done, I won't be a scientist, but I will be well versed enough to state an educated opinion. What will be frustrating is that when I do, someone will say, "You're just saying that because you are a [fill in the blank]." But you know what? I'm used to it. Trying being a Christian in college.
Thanks for listening my friend.
Post a Comment